Dickie Dunn wrote:The Hobbit reviews have been an interesting read so far. Lots of hate for the 48 FPS, mainly due how "fake" it makes the movie look. One thing that is very disappointing to me is that Orcs and Uruk-hai are no longer actors in this movie. Its all CGI, and apparently its very noticeable its CGI, with one review describing them as looking like they came straight out of a video game. Using actual actors in The Lord of the Rings gave it a "realistic" feel. They were frightening, imposing characters. The battles and sword fights actually took place. One review I read compared it to the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy for Star Wars. The excessive use of CGI in the prequel trilogy causes a major disconnect between the feel of the two series, and the same is happening here. The use of 48 FPS is causing Middle-Earth to no longer feel or look like the Middle-Earth from LOTR. The use of CGI instead of actual actors has removed the weight and realism from the action scenes. Seems like a poor decision for them to make regarding the production of this movie.

Even before you got to it, the first thing I thought of was the original Star Wars trilogy vs the prequel. The battle scenes and just interaction in the original vs the prequel doesnt' even compare, the original felt "real".

I loved the LOTR trilogy because like you described, the orcs, etc were real actors and it just gave it a better sense of realism. It's amazing what you can do with CGI, and if you have a few characters that are CGI, just like that weird looking little dude in LOTR, or yoda in the prequel, it's fine, but when entire worlds are created and every character is CGI, I dont' like it.

Also read Ian McGregor actually cried a few times on set because he just couldn't take acting by himself in front of a green screen for almost the entire filming.

The Star Wars prequels drive me crazy, and thats with ignoring that the first two are just crappy movies. If you're going to make prequel movies, when you are finished with the prequels the appropriate way to watch the movies should be in chronological order, going from Episode I and finishing with Episode VI, and it just doesn't work. There is the previously mentioned disconnect between the two series regarding the feel of the movies, technology use, etc. (And why the hell is everything so damn shiny in the prequel trilogy?) Three movies of non-stop "Sith this, Sith that, blah blah blah Sith", yet there isn't a single mention of a "Sith" in the original trilogy. All of the surprises of the original trilogy have been ruined. If you take someone who has never watched Star Wars before and make them start with Episode I, not only do they hate their life and wonder why so many people love Star Wars, they know that Luke and Leia are siblings, they know that Anakin is Darth Vader, they know that Darth Vader is Luke's father, they've already seen the Death Star, etc. The only people surprised by the "big reveals" in the original trilogy are the characters in the movie, and thats just bad story telling.

Anyways, another big complaint I am seeing about The Hobbit is pacing issues, especially early in the movie. I'm sure this will be blamed on the questionable decision to extend two movies into three, but I'm wondering how much that really factored in.

Spoiler:

Its a shorter movie for the LOTR series, but its still a long movie. There's nothing wrong with having a trilogy of two-hour movies. There appears to be needless cameos in an attempt to "tie" the movie into LOTR, which is completely unnecessary. The beginning of the movie is very heavy on exposition. These aren't problems that stem from extending two movies into three, these are problems that come from poor story structure and storytelling, which can probably be attributed to having four credited writers on the screenplay.

Dickie Dunn wrote:The Star Wars prequels drive me crazy, and thats with ignoring that the first two are just crappy movies. If you're going to make prequel movies, when you are finished with the prequels the appropriate way to watch the movies should be in chronological order, going from Episode I and finishing with Episode VI, and it just doesn't work. There is the previously mentioned disconnect between the two series regarding the feel of the movies, technology use, etc. (And why the hell is everything so damn shiny in the prequel trilogy?) Three movies of non-stop "Sith this, Sith that, blah blah blah Sith", yet there isn't a single mention of a "Sith" in the original trilogy. All of the surprises of the original trilogy have been ruined. If you take someone who has never watched Star Wars before and make them start with Episode I, not only do they hate their life and wonder why so many people love Star Wars, they know that Luke and Leia are siblings, they know that Anakin is Darth Vader, they know that Darth Vader is Luke's father, they've already seen the Death Star, etc. The only people surprised by the "big reveals" in the original trilogy are the characters in the movie, and thats just bad story telling.

My wife is the only person I know that has never watched any of the Star Wars movies (and probably never will). But if we were to view them, or if I was going to show somebody them for the first time, I'd definitely go the order they were released, starting with Episode 4.

almost like the prequels are a flashback. seems to make the most sense.

I've been thinking a lot about the Star Wars prequels recently and heres my list of biggest problems

-one thing that bothered me from the first time I saw Phantom Menace (which I really liked at the time) was the pod race. mostly the announcers. they were something out of our current late 20th century X-Games culture. You wouldn't have heard a race called like that even 20 years ago. Immediately that dates the film. You see the same thing in Attack of the Clones when Obi Wan goes into a diner.

-we were told Anakin and Obi Wan were friends, but we never saw it. All we saw was Obi Wan nagging and Anakin whining. If they would have set Anakin up older in the first film and showed them as friends it would've made a lot more sense. making the character likeable at some point would have also helped make episode 3 more tragic without having to tell us that it is.

-when I was a kid watching the first movie I was really interested in what the Clone Wars were. I assumed in my mind it was the Jedi fighting clones of themselves. in any case, the Clone War was kind of a dud. thousands of motherless clones destroying thousands of motherless robots. that sort of thing wouldnt affect anyone except that they might see their taxes go up. what was the consequence of losing the war? make that more dire.

-exactly whats wrong with the empire? it seems terrible in the original movies but was it really? other than the occasional destruction of a planet, what was different about the empire than how things were before?

Last edited by pittsoccer33 on Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

npv708 wrote:Can somebody please explain to me why everyone considers the Big Lebowski as a comedy classic? I thought it was terrible. I've seen it multiple times and still just find it shallow and pedantic.

npv708 wrote:Can somebody please explain to me why everyone considers the Big Lebowski as a comedy classic? I thought it was terrible. I've seen it multiple times and still just find it shallow and pedantic.

Because walter sobchak is one of the greatest characters in a comedy movie...ever probably.

npv708 wrote:Can somebody please explain to me why everyone considers the Big Lebowski as a comedy classic? I thought it was terrible. I've seen it multiple times and still just find it shallow and pedantic.

Because walter sobchak is one of the greatest characters in a comedy movie...ever probably.

Why? Because he bowls and waves a gun... If that's the case than Roy Munson> Walter

But, this is a meaningless argument, it's like talking to the people who think Seinfeld sucks. There must be some missing trigger in the brain that prevents you from finding humour in something blatantly humorous.

npv708 wrote:Can somebody please explain to me why everyone considers the Big Lebowski as a comedy classic? I thought it was terrible. I've seen it multiple times and still just find it shallow and pedantic.

It may have something to do with spectacular performances by John Goodman, Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, John Turturro, and, above all, John Goodman.

pittsoccer33 wrote:I've been thinking a lot about the Star Wars prequels recently and heres my list of biggest problems

-one thing that bothered me from the first time I saw Phantom Menace (which I really liked at the time) was the pod race. mostly the announcers. they were something out of our current late 20th century X-Games culture. You wouldn't have heard a race called like that even 20 years ago. Immediately that dates the film. You see the same thing in Attack of the Clones when Obi Wan goes into a diner.

-we were told Anakin and Obi Wan were friends, but we never saw it. All we saw was Obi Wan nagging and Anakin whining. If they would have set Anakin up older in the first film and showed them as friends it would've made a lot more sense. making the character likeable at some point would have also helped make episode 3 more tragic without having to tell us that it is.

-when I was a kid watching the first movie I was really interested in what the Clone Wars were. I assumed in my mind it was the Jedi fighting clones of themselves. in any case, the Clone War was kind of a dud. thousands of motherless clones destroying thousands of motherless robots. that sort of thing wouldnt affect anyone except that they might see their taxes go up. what was the consequence of losing the war? make that more dire.

-exactly whats wrong with the empire? it seems terrible in the original movies but was it really? other than the occasional destruction of a planet, what was different about the empire than how things were before?

1) Agree with you first point. The pod race in general was just Lucas fulfilling something only he wanted in the movie IMO. It was pointless and dumb. And just the entire feel of the first two movies was more cartoonish IMO, even the droids in the Separtist army were moronic. Outside of Ewan McGregor, the acting was horrible and forced, and just overall looking back, I now dislike those movies. A New Hope and especially Empire Strikes back were so much better, it doesn't even compare. And even though Return of the Jedi was a little hokie with the Ewoks and some of Jabba's puppets, it was still a good overall movie.

2) I thought Obi Wan and Anakin were friends. Especially in the 3rd one. It was one of those love hate relationships. Just like almost any mentor/student type relationship.

3) If you only watch the movies, yeah the Clone Wars are a disappointment. But I've watched the Clone Wars tv show with my nephew a few times and it is awesome and goes so much deeper into it. Actually really good.

Troy Loney wrote: There must be some missing trigger in the brain that prevents you from finding humour in something blatantly humorous.

If there is I sure am missing it.

I have around 450 movies in my collection, and I doubt 20 of them are comedies. I just don't find them funny. Things like Step Brothers, Dumb and Dumber, and Anchorman just don't make me laugh. Seinfeld and Saturday Night Live don't make me laugh either.

I think they're both rated accurately if they're considered among the best modern filmmakers. You could make the argument Tarantino is slightly less original, but that shouldn't really take away from the overall quality of his films IMO.